Not to call names, but . . .

Just a few words from The Rev. Obama

By The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 3:47 a.m.

SOMEWHERE in our president’s short inaugural address last week (it only seemed long), our newly re-elected chief executive paused to deliver a pious little sermon on the evils of name-calling—and for good measure, the evils of delay, spectacle and absolutism, too.

You're at least as guilty of every moralistic piety as you accuse the President of being. If morals are expressed in terms of secular persuasion, then Obama is speaking from the same "bully pulpit" as every president since TR. And if the Democrat Geezer editors and their atherosclerotic public won't give up their devotion to guns, then maybe a blast of piety, as you call it, is just what you need. What does it take to open your ears and eyes to the effects of violence, including that in your denying hearts? (It would be refreshing for once to hear you say something positive about this president -- as you did throughout the last campaign, which you lost you'll remember, about Mitt Romney, who couldn't tell any audience anything except what they wanted to hear.)

Seems quite a vicious personal attack on the president to be published anonymously. Who wrote this screed? Seems to have the odor of Harton about it. Greg Harton, if it's you, why don't you put your name the reeking thing?

When did he "call names?" Does this writer even know what name calling is? Apparently, because for some reason they think it insulting call him "Rev." throughout this piece.

And then the finale:

"...he might try acting... Greek word for actor is the root of an English one: hypocrite.">>

So, after calling him "Rev." three times (because his speech was a "pious sermon"), the author then has the audacity to call Obama a hypocrite for apparently never doing what the author of this piece has done.

The piece is bad enough to have been written by a committee, but the tone and the paucity of germane content are so consistent in the overall unpleasantness that I have to agree with the single-writer theory.

"To be or not to be, that is the question. Whither it is nobler to believe the amateur Free, or to believe the professionals on the Democrat Gazzette staff. Tis a far, far better thing I read by professionals than any amateur delopinkvale that developed randomly in a free and unpaid mind."---Me and couple of other great writers

I thought this line was an extremely brilliant observation of the rantings of a maniacal leader of the blind 51% of freeloaders and freethinkers in this country who have banded together to form a new policital party.

We are the FREE party and our motto is "Take everything you can, but think about it."

"The nation's gross domestic product shrank for the first time in three and a half years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday."---Wall Street Journal 1-30-13

Notice to Free party-We tried to tell you and so did the Democrat Gazette staff

"...declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December...">>

The ankle biter might want to be careful to not confuse a weather event, with climate. Let's add in a little context to that cherry....

FOX News:

"For the whole of 2012 the economy grew 2.2 percent."

"...first decline since [Bush] recession as businesses scaled back on restocking and government spending plunged."

"Government spending tumbled at a 6.6 percent rate, as defense outlays plunged at a 22.2 percent pace, wiping out the previous quarter's gains. Government subtracted 1.33 percentage points form(sic) growth. The decline in defense spending was the largest since 1972."

"The recovery also had to deal with [silly republicans blathering about] uncertainty over the so-called fiscal cliff of scheduled tax hikes and budget cuts, which hurt confidence..."http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/20...

Etc.

D.------------"Republican criticism of President Obama for the condition of the economy is akin to criticizing firefighters for the condition of a house right after the firefighters had stopped it from burning down. When President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. When President Obama took office, the economy [GDP] was shrinking at an annual rate of 8.9 percent. The economy was burning down. Then the firefighters arrived. The Obama stimulus created some 3,300,000 jobs. Under President Obama's stewardship, the economy has recovered all private sector job losses..."

Republicans continue to oppose stimulus spending. Republicans oppose any potential stimulus by the Federal Reserve. In other words, Dean Baker's analogy didn't go far enough. It's not just that the Republicans are criticizing the firefighters for the condition of the house right after the firefighters saved it from burning down, it's also that the Republicans lit the fire in the first place, tried to stop the firefighters from getting to the house, and now are trying to stop the construction workers from getting to the work of rebuilding it, while themselves planning to add more fuel and light another match."http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

"The [president's inaugural] speech itself has received high marks. A recent Huffpost/YouGov poll found that the majority of Americans agreed with the president on key issues he highlighted in his speech, like equal pay for women and protecting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Obama's speech has been widely-regarded as his most progressive.

President Obama's popularity among constituents is rising...According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 60 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the president, while only 37 percent said they had an unfavorable view.

This is the highest his favorability has been since 2009, the first year of his first term, when he received 79 percent positive responses in a similar poll. It's also up from last year's ratings, which found his popularity in the 50 percent range."

If one doesn't agree with numbers and being questioned on it, huffy yelling and blaming Fox News on the Hill is a precedent to follow now.

This is back and forth crap is all part of the cycle. I'm not going to bad mouth President Obama ( I support the man), but certain people would be cheering this kind of article on if it was about President Bush.

Right on there Tank, just rattling the food dish of our local free specimen and watching him throw a tantrum, call names, and just become socially hostile by uncontrolled and egotisticalby desperate rants against we who he sees as inferior of mind and perspective.

Some here have a prejudice against citing sources, but centuries of tradition support backing up your opinions with facts.Some sources are more credible than others. This has to do with more than political bias. For instance, while I strongly disagree with the editorial stance of the Wall Street Journal, it has a long history of excellent and neutral reporting (I haven't looked at it lately and hope that hasn't changed).